It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
I couldn't swear to 4e, but Lightning Bolts were capable of damaging stone in at least every version up to 3.5e. And bounced if hitting a solid object, so you could get interesting effects out of them under the right circumstances.
Exactly!
From 3.5 Srd:
The lightning bolt sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in its path. It can melt metals with a low melting point, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, or bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the bolt may continue beyond the barrier if the spell’s range permits; otherwise, it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Now, I wouldn't want to impose my logic onto others and remake every spell but I would appreciate something like a "Rule 0 of spellcasting: let your imagination fly" in which the DM is encouraged to allow for certain leeway in the effects the spells can produce if they feel like the situation warrants it and want to reward thinking outside the box.
That way when someone asks whether their Druid can cast Grasping Vine in order to try and save the party by redirecting a rolling boulder, or if he can use the spell to grasp an unattended object, the answer can be "according to the spell description no, because it's not a creature but under the general rule of spellcasting your DM may allow for that".
It just occured to me that one of the most important things for me to change would be to liberate spell effects from their extremely tight, narrow and "gamist" constraints.
Especially new players, but not only them, have a bit of trouble reconciliating the effects some spells are supposed to produce with real world logic. "The spell does only what it says in the description. If it doesn't say this, you can't produce the effect" In some aspects casting spells in 5e feels just as restrictive as it is in a video game when it should be the other way around.
There is a great scene in one of Terry Goodkind's novels from Sword of Truth series when an archmage fights against magic immune enemies. Realizing that his spells can't hurt them directly, he threw lightning in such a way that it destroyed parts of stone floor and sent razor sharp shards in their direction, lacerating them.
I am not saying that this particular effect should be written in the spell description but I would want spells to be described and handled in such a way that I don't have to explain to a new player why his powerful Lightning Bolt can't shatter a window but it can set a pile of dry hay on fire and inversely why his Chain Lightning can shatter a window but it can't set a pile of dry hay on fire.
I couldn't swear to 4e, but Lightning Bolts were capable of damaging stone in at least every version up to 3.5e. And bounced if hitting a solid object, so you could get interesting effects out of them under the right circumstances.
Indeed, in AD&D, lightning bolts were very complicated, including bouncing back at the caster if they could not shatter a wall for example. But they could also set fire to combustibles:
Explanation/Description: Upon casting this spell, the magic user releases a powerful stroke of electrical energy which causes damage equal to 1 sixsided die (d6) for each level of experience of the spell caster to creatures within its area of effect, or 50% of such damage to such creatures which successfully save versus the attack form. The range of the bolt is the location of the commencement of the stroke, i.e. if shot to 6", the bolt would extend from this point to n inches further distance. The lightning bolt will set fire to combustibles, sunder wooden doors, splinter up to 1' thickness of stone, and melt metals with a low melting point (lead, gold, copper, silver, bronze). Saving throws must be made for objects which withstand the full force of a stroke (cf. fireball). The area of the lightning bolt's effect is determined by the spell caster, just as its distance is. The stroke can be either a forking bolt 1" wide and 4" long, or a single bolt %"wide and 8" long. If a 12th level magic-user cast the spell at its maximum range, 16" in this case, the stroke would begin at 16" and flash outward from there, as a forked bolt ending at 20" or a single one ending at 24". If the full length of the stroke is not possible due to the interposition of CI nonconducting barrier (such as a stone wall), the lightning bolt will double and rebound towards its caster, its length being the normal total from beginning to end of stroke, damage caused to interposing barriers notwithstanding. Example: An 8' stroke is begun at a range of 4", but the possible space in the desired direction is only 3%"; so the bolt begins at the 3%" maximum, and it rebounds 8" in the direction of its creator. The material components of the spell are a bit of fur and an amber, crystal or glass rod.
Back to the original topic, while I agree with the suggestion to use spells inventively in general, this goes off in multiple directions:
First, it should be not only the spells, but all the powers and actually most of the actions, all of these should be allowed to be used inventively.
Back to my example of the character Jumping on the giant boar, it was to steer it away from the prophetess by twisting its head by grabbing the ears, the character had no way to kill the boar quickly enough to prevent it from attacking the prophetess and probably goring her to death in one blow.
But then, you get in the area of general consistency and of players wanting to repeat or deviate things further. And this can only happen with the right spirit around the table. I don't want to pull the topic back to minmaxing and rule-lawyering, but it is connected, as soon as you make a ruling like this, players will remember it. Some will only and simply remember it with fondness, but some will try to exploit it, and depending on your table you need to be prepared for this. What I'm trying to say here (and this is why I posted the lengthy description of lightning bolt above), you might end up either with a very complicated game (like AD&D was, and this is not what my understanding of the trend of the game is) or a lot of small house rules to keep track of.
Finally, the area of "real world logic" is a tricky one. First, D&D is not a realistic game, it is at best a simulation of high fantasy. Surviving a fireball is not "real world logic", in the real world, you would be dead. Things like hit points and damage are not wholly physical for example, for some characters, it's really luck or divine protection. Moreover, even in "real world logic", you can get different interpretations, for example (and this is not a criticism of anyone), Lathlaer thinks that a lightning bolt should not set combustibles on fire, but Gygax did...
No no, I want it to set combustibles on fire. And I want it to be able to damage objects. Per RAW now LB sets things on fire and CL destroys objects. I don't see any reason why both spells couldn't do both.
And I also think that if a Druids wants to be cool and cast Call Lightning in order to set a pyre on fire, they should also be able to do it (per RAW, they are not).
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6. A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round. He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6.
1) A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round.
2) He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
1) Actually, no, it's not. Fireball is an AoE spell, which means that it can (and usually will) be used to damage more than one creature every time it is used. Sneak Attack only damages one creature.
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes. They're not overpowered, even if their Sneak Attack dice does seem like a lot for one attack. Fighters and other classes have other features to allow them to keep up with Rogues (Action Surge, 4 attacks every action and probably a bonus action attack, and their subclasses that normally enhance their damage).
1.) I would change the spell attack so that all physical spell attacks involve a to hit roll which might set a spell save DC and that have range modifiers rather than max range
You want to throw a fireball? Roll to hit, add range modifiers, cover, etc. Your roll sets the spell save DC.
I'd only want that if they really boosted how likely it is that the caster gets their spell to work as planned. Currently, a little more than half my targets get hit full on by a Fireball. Reduce that by almost half again for the To Hit roll? That is a major nerf. If they messed with the mechanics so that it's roughly the same odds as now, but the DC gets adjusted by my rolls? That could be an interesting experiment.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
3.) I would add a couple of more Wild Surge tables based on themes. There might be a whimsical one, a horror one, etc. so that the GM can choose which one to use for the tone of his campaign.
Those are actually kind of present in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. They're spooky themed ones, aberrant ones, broken magic ones, and so on.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes.
They're actually kind of weak unless it's a zero magic items game. A level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex does a base of 1d8+10d6+5 (44) damage per round, a level 20 fighter with dueling style does 4d8+28 (46), and any static damage bonuses (such as a magic weapon or buffing spell) apply 4x to the fighter, 1x to the rogue.
I think this thread has unknowingly become an excellent place for DMs to look and find some interesting ideas or for players to ask for.
As I was reading through all this I was actually thinking the same thing.
If I could change one thing about 5e, it would be to replace the action economy with the one Pathfinder 2nd edition uses.
But arguably I would say that 5e would be universally more playable for me if three things happened and frankly 2 of the three things are being addressed through 3rd party material.
Monster Design, which Matt Coville is going to fix later this year and the speed and deadliness of combat, already fixed with hardcore rules.
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
Honestly, looks a lot like 4th edition (I've been playing around with converting 4th edition monsters to 5e; it's reasonably straightforward as long as you start PCs at level 3).
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
It really does and though I don't know if Matt is aware of it, but based on the preview, this content is completely D&D system neutral, meaning you can use it in any version of D&D and it works.
The descriptions might be system neutral, but the mechanics certainly are not. A lot of things (such as ability score modifiers, attack bonus, and armor class) don't make sense for editions before 3rd, and the standards for what those things should be have changed dramatically between 3e, 4e, and 5e.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with changing things: there simply isn't uniformity on what people want (not that 40 is very many, or most likely anywhere close to accurate; in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces, ranger skills, favored enemy, and favored terrain, and I doubt PF has fewer).
I like the philosophy of 'a choice every level', though that doesn't have to mean 'multiple choices every level', nor do all choices have to be active abilities (static ability bonuses don't increase complexity).
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
[snip]
It's no secret that the community and 3rd party designers are always many steps ahead of WotC designers, but I hope they are paying attention because If they want to matter in 2024 when 6e comes out, they need to stay in touch with how some of these modern designers are redefining what D&D can be behind their back. I think MCDM is hinting at putting out their own system at some point in the future and if WotC screws up with 6e, Matt has the audience and talent to give D&D a run for its money.
I think Matt stated in his Twitch stream that they had a lot of ideas but they wouldn't put out their own thing until "there was nothing left in 5e to talk about" or something to that effect. Guess it is safe to say nothing is coming from MCDM in that capacity until sometime after 5.5e, maybe?
That’s only if you do something stupid like use any book from Tasha’s forward.(5e’s version of the bloat books).
Using just the PHB, there are 2 choices for subrace, 35 possible choices for selecting 3 skills, 13+ choices for favored enemy, and 8 choices for favored terrain, for a total of 7280 combination. Admittedly most of those choices are fairly dull, but the fact remains that even a small number of decision points explodes into an enormous number of choices.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
That sounds horrific.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
The reason the game stalls out before reaching The Cool Stuff is that it's also The Broken Stuff; abilities that PCs don't actually get don't need to be balanced.
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
Exactly!
From 3.5 Srd:
Now, I wouldn't want to impose my logic onto others and remake every spell but I would appreciate something like a "Rule 0 of spellcasting: let your imagination fly" in which the DM is encouraged to allow for certain leeway in the effects the spells can produce if they feel like the situation warrants it and want to reward thinking outside the box.
That way when someone asks whether their Druid can cast Grasping Vine in order to try and save the party by redirecting a rolling boulder, or if he can use the spell to grasp an unattended object, the answer can be "according to the spell description no, because it's not a creature but under the general rule of spellcasting your DM may allow for that".
No no, I want it to set combustibles on fire. And I want it to be able to damage objects. Per RAW now LB sets things on fire and CL destroys objects. I don't see any reason why both spells couldn't do both.
And I also think that if a Druids wants to be cool and cast Call Lightning in order to set a pyre on fire, they should also be able to do it (per RAW, they are not).
I would change the rogues sneak attack to a cap at 5d6. A high level rogue could do 10d6 every round its like a fireball every round. He or she does more damage with one attack than a fighter with three...doesn't make sense. And a crit!!!! Forget about it..
1) Actually, no, it's not. Fireball is an AoE spell, which means that it can (and usually will) be used to damage more than one creature every time it is used. Sneak Attack only damages one creature.
2) If you look at the underlying math of the game, Rogues are actually just on par with Fighters, Paladins, and similar classes. They're not overpowered, even if their Sneak Attack dice does seem like a lot for one attack. Fighters and other classes have other features to allow them to keep up with Rogues (Action Surge, 4 attacks every action and probably a bonus action attack, and their subclasses that normally enhance their damage).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Probably include rules for adopting monsters as Player Characters.
I'd only want that if they really boosted how likely it is that the caster gets their spell to work as planned. Currently, a little more than half my targets get hit full on by a Fireball. Reduce that by almost half again for the To Hit roll? That is a major nerf. If they messed with the mechanics so that it's roughly the same odds as now, but the DC gets adjusted by my rolls? That could be an interesting experiment.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Those are actually kind of present in Tasha's Cauldron of Everything. They're spooky themed ones, aberrant ones, broken magic ones, and so on.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
They're actually kind of weak unless it's a zero magic items game. A level 20 rogue with a rapier and 20 dex does a base of 1d8+10d6+5 (44) damage per round, a level 20 fighter with dueling style does 4d8+28 (46), and any static damage bonuses (such as a magic weapon or buffing spell) apply 4x to the fighter, 1x to the rogue.
I think this thread has unknowingly become an excellent place for DMs to look and find some interesting ideas or for players to ask for.
[roll]7d6[/roll]
Every post these dice roll increasing my chances of winning the yahtzee thread (I wish (wait not the twist the wish threa-!))
Drummer Generated Title
After having been invited to include both here, I now combine the "PM me CHEESE 🧀 and tomato into PM me "PIZZA🍕"
I saw Matt's video for the 'Flee, Mortals!' Kickstarter. Looks awesome!
The big issue with 'fixing' combat is lack of agreement about what that means; different players and groups have dramatically different desires.
Honestly, looks a lot like 4th edition (I've been playing around with converting 4th edition monsters to 5e; it's reasonably straightforward as long as you start PCs at level 3).
The descriptions might be system neutral, but the mechanics certainly are not. A lot of things (such as ability score modifiers, attack bonus, and armor class) don't make sense for editions before 3rd, and the standards for what those things should be have changed dramatically between 3e, 4e, and 5e.
Customization.
Pathfinder 3 absolutely NAILED character creation, but most of the other stuff sucked. Just the fact that you could make over fourty types of dwarf ranger at level one ONLY with race and class features is absolutely insane.
“I will take responsibility for what I have done. [...] If must fall, I will rise each time a better man.” ― Brandon Sanderson, Oathbringer.
This perfectly encapsulates the problem with changing things: there simply isn't uniformity on what people want (not that 40 is very many, or most likely anywhere close to accurate; in 5e there's many thousand possible combinations of dwarf subraces, ranger skills, favored enemy, and favored terrain, and I doubt PF has fewer).
I like the philosophy of 'a choice every level', though that doesn't have to mean 'multiple choices every level', nor do all choices have to be active abilities (static ability bonuses don't increase complexity).
I think Matt stated in his Twitch stream that they had a lot of ideas but they wouldn't put out their own thing until "there was nothing left in 5e to talk about" or something to that effect. Guess it is safe to say nothing is coming from MCDM in that capacity until sometime after 5.5e, maybe?
A good book and a cup of tea.
Homebrew| Bard: College of Composition
Feedback Appreciated!
Using just the PHB, there are 2 choices for subrace, 35 possible choices for selecting 3 skills, 13+ choices for favored enemy, and 8 choices for favored terrain, for a total of 7280 combination. Admittedly most of those choices are fairly dull, but the fact remains that even a small number of decision points explodes into an enormous number of choices.
Just gonna point out more proof of Pantagruel's point, as that does not sound 'horrific' at all. It sounds fantastic, and infinitely better than the 5e Thing wherein every last single first-level dwarven ranger is completely, utterly, and absolutely identical to every other first-level dwarven ranger down to the beard hair count, with absolutely no room whatsoever for any sort of variance, specialization, or differentiation. One could pick up a first-level dwarven ranger from an Eberron game and substitute it for a first-level dwarven ranger in Greyhawk and nobody except the dwarven rangers themselves would ever know. It's bullshit and I absolutely hate it.
Nevertheless. Here's a wild idea - get rid of 'level twenty'.
Wizards keeps screeching about how nobody ever plays past twelve, right? They never sell material for games past 12, anyways, and cite the self-fulfilling "nobody plays past 12" thing. Okay. Get rid of all levels past 12. Condense the classes down into twelve levels instead of twenty, combine and consolidate abilities, eliminate unnecessary crap bloat nobody uses (I'M LOOKING AT YOU, 'COUNTERCHARM') and align the game with its actual design intent. Allow players to experience the full breadth of their character instead of always blueballing them eight to ten levels shy of getting to play with The Cool Stuff.
Please do not contact or message me.
The reason the game stalls out before reaching The Cool Stuff is that it's also The Broken Stuff; abilities that PCs don't actually get don't need to be balanced.
"Be honest", you say? Okay.
I currently play five games of D&D - two games alternating every other Thursday with each other, a new one booting up on Tuesdays, a game on Sunday, and an ongoing play-by-post. I'm currently a third-level foxkin warlock in Exandria, a third-level Umbragen paladin in Eberron, a ninth-level furling rogue/cleric in Urth, an eleventh-level tiefling artificer-wizard in Tursk, and a thirteenth-level tabaxi wizard in Faerun-and-FR-adjacent. The artificer started at fifth level and has been seeing more-or-less continuous play for close to two years. All of my games tend to average between two and a half to three and a half hours per session, so on the shorter side, but still. I've also DM'd a game for 'bout eight months, from third to eighth level, and both run and participated in a series of one-shots.
So no. Despite the scornful dismissal inherent in the question, I am not an armchair sideliner who talks the talk without ever walking the walk. I'm playing so much D&D I had to turn down a couple newer games offered to me recently, as well as a request to DM, because I've hit my comfortable limit with the number of games I can participate in. My Thursday and Tuesday group is also remarkably regular - we missed maybe half a dozen sessions last year, and before that we only missed a session once every three or four months. The Sunday game is flakier, but honestly it has a better than 50% record so far so I'll take it.
None of which should really be remotely necessary for anybody to fish for. My credentials don't matter to my discussion points, ne? If someone can't answer another's words, attacking their validity as a player seems a very poor second indeed, hm? Something to remember, perhaps
Please do not contact or message me.